My Suspicion: Patrick Little is a Federal Agent of ZOG

I can’t help thinking Patrick Little is a federal agent or some shill of globo-homo Jewish Supremacism. I have no smoking gun, but gut instinct tells me something is not quite right about his persona. With Paul Nehlen, his kooky direction wasn't all that surprising because, let’s face it, the guy isn’t very bright. An immature dimwit and goofball(who, as it turned out, was only ‘larping’ as a mainstream candidate), he was easily manipulated by 4chan trolls and the like. He went from a semi-serious candidate to something like the Pee-Wee-Herman of the 14/88 crowd simply because he was flattered by all the ‘love’ he got from trolls and nutters.
In contrast, Patrick Little comes across as a bright guy with a sharp mind. So, unless he happens to be funny in a head(a real possibility, I suppose), it’s safe to assume that he’s putting on an act. But for whom? As a general rule, when something happens, it’s useful to ask, "Which side benefited most from it?" Then, it is also useful to ask "Which side was most harmed by it?" With Patrick Little’s series of ‘campaigns’(or stunts), it’s obvious that the biggest casualty has been the Moral Stance against Jewish Supremacism. If Patrick Little had started out as a hotheaded Neo-Nazi blowhard, the only thing he would have discredited is 14/88 nonsense. Instead, Little arrived on the scene by denouncing Zionist Imperialism, Jewish Supremacism, and Globo-Homo craziness that swept over the West(and even the Rest). These were all morally sane, tenable, and necessary positions. If supremacism is toxic and must be rooted out in the US, all honest and rational people should admit that the dominant supremacy that animates the American Way(at home and abroad) is Jewish Supremacy. It molds and holds everything from finance, high-tech, gambling, media, entertainment, law firms, courts, Pentagon, and whore politicians. Jewish supremacists sound alarm about ‘hate speech’ to shut down Free Speech and Free Spend, but the truth is that American Hate is mainly defined by Jewish control of US foreign and domestic policy. US favors Zionist Imperialists over Palestinians who live under Occupation. Why? Because Jewish Supremacists love Zionism and murderously hate Palestinians. Jews control Pop Music industry and have used Rap music to spread virulently murderous messages of street thugs, promoting gang violence that killed countless lives. Jewish anti-white hatred and anti-Christian contempt are spewed by the Jew-run media 24/7. Jews push for White Genocide by promoting replacist Mass-Immigration-Invasion and ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs that implies that INFERIOR white men must surrender their women to SUPERIOR black men). US animus against Iran, Syria, and Russia is all the result of Jewish globo-homo hatred against defiant nations that won’t kowtow to the demands of the Empire of Judea(EOJ).

If the US were truly a white supremacist nation, would the main themes of media, academia, and the Deep State be ‘white people should be overrun and replaced with non-whites’, ‘white women must reject inferior white men and go with superior black men’, ‘white Americans must hate white Russians’, ‘Western Christianity must be replaced with Homomania’, ‘Southern Heritage must be destroyed’, ‘white young ones should worship rappers’, and etc? Seriously, if the US were truly run by ‘white supreamcists’, as so many Jews hyperventilate all the time, would those be the biggest current themes? Then, why are those themes so predominant in so many areas of American Life and Thought? Why did so many white people fall under the sway of such hateful and demented anti-white craziness? It’s because the US is really a Jewish-Supremacist nation, one where globo-homo Zionist-imperialists get to program the media and rig the system to push policies that are deemed ‘Good for Jews’ and ‘Bad for Whites’(or 'Bad for any people hated by Jews').
For those reasons, it is a moral imperative for all good white people to stand up to Jewish Supremacism and its culture of hate, contempt, murderousness, hubris, toxicity, duplicity, and hypocrisy. When faced against an immoral power, the most potent weapon is a moral argument. The Goliath of Falsehood fears the David of Moral Truth. And initially, despite his outlandish antics, Patrick Little garnered attention as a loud, brazen, and courageous speaker of truth to Jewish Power. Even though he had zero chance of becoming Senator of California, he entered the race to make his case against tyrannical Jewish Power and globo-homo imperialist reach around the world. And because of this, he garnered sympathy from individuals of all stripes. As a clever trollitician, he could have spread many effective memes highlighting how the US is really ruled by power-hungry Jewish Supremacists and how all of humanity(not just white people) have so much to lose as the result of the machinations of men like George Soros and institutions in the US and EU that are essentially controlled by Jewish oligarchs and their agent-enforcers. Surely, any sane person would have learned from the David Duke case that it makes no sense to be associated with KKK or Neo-Nazi nonsense. Now, Little didn’t join the KKK(like Duke stupidly did once) or the American Nazi Party. But by spewing Neo-Nazi talking-points, Patrick Little effectively associated his initial morally valid condemnations of Jewish supremacism with a form of White Supremacism. If your moral objective is to condemn supremacism(of Jews or any other group), how does it help your argument to support or apologize for the supremacism of your own race? What’s the point of morally condemning Jewish supremacism to argue for White Supremacism? Now, Little will deny that he is any such, but by regurgitating much of 14/88 nonsense on Hitler and the wonders of Nazi Germany, he has associated himself with a supremacist ideology that triggered a war that killed 50 million white people in Europe.

Now, why would Little do this? He doesn’t seem like a dumb person. He comes across as sober and intelligent. Why would he do something so reckless and retarded? Why make a moral case against Jewish Supremacism but then morally discredit oneself by shilling for German Supremacism of the Nazis. If Hitler and Nazi Ideology weren’t supremacist, what is?
One possible explanation is that Patrick Little became so angry with Jews that he came to endorse anything associated with anti-Jewishness in kneejerk fashion. If true, it means Little is too unhinged and impulsive to be a moral voice. A moral person must try to maintain his equilibrium of honesty and integrity against the pressures of passion. Now, given what so many Jews are doing to the white race, Palestinians & Arabs, Russians, Iranians, Christians, white people, and decent folks around the world, it is understandable why so many people are angry with Jews and even hate them. According to ADL and such vile organizations, there is something wrong with ‘not liking Jews’ as if it is the duty of all of mankind to like Jews. But why? Liking or hating a people should always be conditional. If Jews are good to you and act with honor, there are reasons to like them. If Jews treat you horribly, why should you like them? It'd make good sense to dislike or hate them. But, by the logic of ADL, Jews should be unconditionally revered like they’re gods or something. We must make offering to the Great Jews no matter what they do to us. Jew-Worship is like a pagan practice of mass-human-sacrifice, one where amoral gods must be obeyed and appeased no matter what they do. Jew-Worship says Jews are like a race of gods, therefore we must revere and obey them regardless of whether they are good or bad. Indeed, because Jews are so ‘holy’, whatever they do and demand must be ‘good’. With Jews, good-or-bad isn’t determined by rules but by identity, i.e. Jews are good because they are Jews, and what Jews do is good because Jews did it. So, if Hungary shuts its borders to mass-invaders, that is bad because Jews don’t like it. But if Jews do the same in Israel to protect the borders, it is good because Jews like it. Jews are the master, and we are dogs for whom the issue of 'good or bad' is simply a matter of 'master likes it' or 'master hates it'. We are to have no moral agency of our own. White people having moral agency is 'white supremacism' in the Jewish Supremacist Rule-book. It is a case of bad uppity doggy that won't no longer fetch the slippers and the newspaper. Only Jews get to decide, and white people exist only to obey and agree. Jews got the rod, and whites just nod.

With Jews, moral rules are impossible in the Current Year because Jewish supremacist power insists on a kind of ethno-nihilism. What is GOOD FOR JEWS is good. That’s just about it. And what Jews deem as BAD FOR JEWS is bad because it displeases Jews. So, good or bad is a matter of Jewish pleasure of displeasure. This is obviously supremacism, and Patrick Little made a splash by calling out on Jewish arrogance, contempt, and hypocrisy. His campaign seemed like a stunt from the beginning, but it was spunky and feisty. And he won respect from various peoples and groups because he was willing to say what the Establishment Parties were afraid to say.

The True Sinead McCarthy

But what did he soon do? He began to talk 14/88 nonsense about Hitler as a great man and how WWII was entirely the fault of everyone but the Germans. Alarm bells should have gone off here. Little’s shtick is so much like that of Sinead McCarthy, a red-head who appeared on the Counter-Culture Right a few years ago. She thrust herself as an irreverent maverick unafraid to poke fun at sacred cows. While some of her stuff was willfully offensive and outlandish, people excused it as your typically racy troll behavior. But it wasn’t long before she pushed for Flat Earth Theory and began to accuse every other person in the Alt Right as ‘homosexual’. Then, it became obvious that she was either a total kook or an agent for an organization like SPLC, especially as photos emerged that exposed her as part of the POC gang(and possible 'mudshark').
What do Little and McCarthy have in common? They seem to be rather bright and knowledgeable about lots of things. So, why would Little make so much good sense about Jewish power and then sabotage his own moral credibility with boilerplate apologia for Hitler and Nazis? And why would Sinead McCarthy, who billed herself as a rebel and maverick, claim to believe that the World is Flat? How can someone be skeptical about the Jewish Narrative but so trusting of the utter nonsense of Flat Earth Theory? It seems McCarthy’s shtick was to associate any opposition to Jewish Power & Narrative with cuckoo astronomy & superstition. And it appears Patrick Little’s plan is to keep associating moral opposition to Jewish supremacism with support for Hitler and Nazis who stood for Aryan Supremacism.

Thankfully, few people take Patrick Little seriously anymore, just like most people in the Dissident Right dropped McCarthy like a hot potato once she began to spout nonsense about the World being Flat and how every other guy in the Alt Right is a homo. It just goes to show that we need to be vigilant at all times against infiltrators... or nutjobs.

Patrick Little vs Nick Fuentes — Why Fuentes is wrong and right — The problems of Paul Nehlen and Patrick Little

In the heated exchange between Patrick Little and Nicholas Fuentes, the latter says an election has no meaning unless it is to win. Perhaps it was rhetorical flourish on Fuentes’ part to belittle Little as a pathetic electoral Loser, because Fuentes surely knows that elections mean different things in different contexts. Fuentes would be right in the case of Patrick Little IF there was any real chance of a Republican winning the Senate seat in California. But there is NONE. So, the next Senator of California will be another Democrat. Republicans have about as much chance of winning a state-wide seat in California as a fish has of surviving in the desert. So, I don’t begrudge Little’s use of candidacy mainly as a platform to inform people of the Jewish Question.
Also, if indeed California is the future of America, Little’s reaching out to non-whites serves as a template for what-is-to-be-done by whites. Ideally, the US should remain a white-majority nation, a part of Western Civilization. But if Jews do succeed in engineering the US to become a new Brazil or Venezuela(to the point where White Power will be permanently broken), then the only option left for whites is to get revenge on Jews by forming any possible alliance with People-of-Color against Jewish supremacist power. If Jews amassed great power and destroyed white America by directing the rising tide of color to hate and blame Whitey, then whites must return the favor once the US is lost to them forever. Indeed, I’ve argued that the GOP should fold its tents, and all whites should just join the Democratic Party. Turn the US into a one-party state and then form ANY kind of alliance with any group to bring down the Jew. Make the Jew taste his own medicine. If Jews pushed the Narrative that ‘whites are evil cuz of white privilege and must atone by siding with people of color’, then whites should indeed side with people-of-color and expose Jews as the real rulers, elites, and tyrants of not only the US but the world. After all, just do the math and add up the numbers. Jews are 2% of the US population but control how much of finance, foreign policy, media, academia, gambling & other vice industries, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Real Estate, sports franchises, Big Pharma(the harma), and etc.? So, if the future of the US is California, whites cannot regain White Power & Dominance again but they can, at the very least, get sweet revenge against Jews by, ironically, playing the Jewish rule-book. Jews have insisted that everyone, ‘good’ white and people-of-color, must unite against Evil White Privilege. Okay! Since Jewish Privilege is the Ultimate in White Privilege, then all white goyim should side with blacks, browns, yellows, Hindus, and Muslims against Jews. Whites should demand NO special treatment for Zionists over Palestinians. After all, if favoring one group over another(especially one with far less power) is a form of supremacism, then US media and foreign policy are totally supremacist in favoring Israeli-Zionist death squads over Palestinian women and children being gunned down out in the open(with the blessing of US whore politicians who take 30 pieces of silver from Judeo-Nazi globo-pimps).
So, given that Patrick Little or any other Republican has zero chance of winning the Senate seat in California, I have no problem with Little using his campaign as a platform to raise the JQ and wake up peoples of all races and backgrounds as to which people have the Real Power and are doing most harm to the world. On that score, Little deserves more respect than any Cuckservative GOP candidate who did little but sing hosannas to Israel DESPITE THE FACT that Jews have been at the forefront of the War on White. GOP’s cuckservative whores and wussies deserve no respect. Pat Little did nothing wrong in using his campaign to spread a message. He had no chance of winning the election so he decided to speak what cannot be spoken in American politics.

Another reason why Fuentes is wrong is focusing so much on ‘winning’ is that certain ideas take time to sprout, grow, and bloom. When Pat Buchanan ran in 1992, he knew he had slim chance of winning. And he knew he could have gotten more support from donors if he’d championed globalism and ‘free trade’. He didn’t. Instead, he spoke up for the American working class. He was attacked by the Media for his ‘fascism’. For much of the decade, people like Rush Limbaugh derided Buchanan as a ‘populist’ than a conservative. Buchanan failed to win once again in 1996 and lost big in 2000. And for his opposition to the Iraq War, he became a total persona-non-grata in the Republican Party. So, it seemed as if Buchanan was the biggest loser in US politics. But precisely because he stuck to his guns, stood on principles, and carried on with core conviction, his ideas eventually bore fruit with the rise of Donald Trump and populism(that, among the base, now has more positive connotations than ‘conservatism’ that came to conserve nothing). Also, Buchanan’s 1992 speech, which had been denigrated as one of the biggest mistakes ever, is now seen by many as one of the great political oratories in US history by some people. The speech would surely resonate with many Americans if they heard it today. So, when Fuentes just dismisses anyone who fails in political campaigns as irrelevant ‘losers’, he’s being glib and shallow. He is also betraying himself because he also could have won much more in the media if he’d taken the 30 pieces of silver from the likes of Ben Shapiro or some well-funded Establishment operation. But because he chose the honest and courageous path, he has to build up his reputation from the margins. The easy path has been denied him, so he has to take the longer and harder uphill path with a machete. Along the way, there will be lots of poison ivy, snakes, and other dangers, but it’s never meant to be easy for those with principles.

But in one respect, Fuentes is right and Little is totally wrong. It’s one thing for Little to court controversy and take tough stands on sensitive issues, but it’s quite another for him to spread lies, talk nonsense, exaggerate his importance, turn it all into empty theater, and, worst of all, go 14/88. It’s a cliche but true: Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right. Just because Jewish Power is now the worst evil in the world doesn’t mean that all enemies of Jews are good people. Farrakhan has been blasting Jewish influence & corruption, but he is a son-of-a-bitch himself. And even if past ‘anti-Semites’ may have had sound reasons for their antipathy, it doesn’t mean everything they did was justified. Some of those pogroms in Ukraine spiraled out of control. And the Nazism constituted a kind of Teutonic ideological pathology no less demented than Jewish globalist supremacism.
We should all know this by now. Sure, the Soviets achieved the awesome feat of defeating Nazi Evil, but the Soviets also committed lots of evils. The US did noble things around the world but also terrible, ugly things. Jews did a lot of good as well as lot of bad. The good can be bad, the bad can be good, and most peoples and nations are mix of both.
It makes no sense to go the David-Duke path where just about the ONLY GOOD JEW is Gilad Atzmon who happens to be especially harsh on his Tribesmen. Even if we have every right to be very angry with current Jewish Power, we can still keep our heads and not fall into the trap of praising insane ideologies and movements just because they were ‘woke’ on the JQ. We tend to think in terms of ‘enemy of our enemy is our friend’, but the ‘friend’ can turn out to be just as bad or even worse. Remember how the Ukrainians initially welcomed the Germans as liberators(from Soviet tyranny), only to discover that the Nazis considered Ukrainian Slavs to be a bunch of ‘subhumans’ to be treated even worse than under Stalin. But for whatever reasons, Little has decided to take his anti-Zionism and anti-Jewish-supremacism into Neo-Nazi territory. He claims that the Shoah didn’t happen. He says outrageous things like how Germans treated Jews better than Japanese were treated in internment camps during WWII. Sure, we can find anecdotal evidence where a handful of Jews were treated better because they bribed the Germans. Or for propaganda purposes, Nazis created a few ‘potemkin concentration camps’ where Jews were treated rather well to make ‘documentary’ films to show to the world. But then, Soviets did the same thing. Judging by communist documentaries of the USSR, one would have thought that workers and peasants were living in a socialist paradise of plenty and bliss. Patrick Little, who is now so skeptical and cynical about Jewish claims, is willing to swallow every BS peddled by crazed Neo-Nazis and their ilk. But the essence of truth is not a matter of black or white, night or day, this or that, especially when it comes to something as grand and complicated as history. Just as it’d be stupid to say everything about Nazism and Hitler was bad, it’s wrong to be totally anti-Jewish on everything. And just as we must be careful not to fall for Jewish BS(about Iran, Russia, Syria, Palestinians, white people, the ‘far right’, etc), we must be careful not to fall for nonsense endlessly peddled by Neo-Nazi types. Granted, Neo-Nazi psychos have no power whereas Jews have immense power around the world. But lies are lies, nonsense is nonsense, and we need to stand on the side of truth. What matters is not 'Jews are good, whites are bad' or 'whites are good, Jews are bad', but 'people, Jews or whites, must make an honest effort to be good on realistic terms.'

Because Patrick Little spouted off Neo-Nazi talking points, he disgraced himself. Worse, he associated all the necessary and compelling points he made about Jewish Power and Zionist influence with crazy 14/88 ‘Hitler did noting wrong’ nonsense. Before Little let down people like Fuentes, he disappointed and alienated people like Ryan Dawson. Dawson was looking forward to a sane discussion about Jewish power and what’s happening in Israel/Palestine, but it wasn’t long before Little veered into utterly crazy talk about how Nazis treated Jews like guests at Waldorf Hotel. It got repulsive, and in a subsequent video, Dawson reiterated the importance of not losing one’s head and lurching into cuckoo banana territory. Just like outlandish theories about 9/11 undermine intelligent skepticism of the official narrative, insane anti-Jewish vitriol undermines necessary exposure and criticism of Jewish power. Just because Jewish globalists now act like Judeo-Nazis doesn’t mean we should be praising the Old Nazis. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And it is for this reason that Fuentes was correct in not associating himself with Little.

Though I don’t think Patrick Little is a fed-larping-as-‘far-right’-dissident, he might as well be just that whenever he spouts off about how ‘Hitler did nothing wrong’. On the issue of Shoah, Little makes the same ‘mistake’ as those in the Holocaust-Desecration cult who extrapolate one falsehood about the Narrative to nullify the entire event. For example, even experts now admit that many accounts of what happened at Auschwitz can no longer be supported by evidence. And there have been Jewish charlatans who fabricated tales for attention or fortune. And certain confessions made by Germans were under the duress of torture. But that doesn’t mean the main event didn’t happen. Surely, there were plenty of men who exaggerated or told tall tales about Gettysburg or Normandy, but that doesn’t mean those events didn’t happen. Skepticism is a good thing, but why is it that so many people who become skeptical of the Jewish Narrative become easy suckers for other extreme Narratives? It’s as if, having been soul-cleansed of one sacred narrative, they crave another one that fills them with certainty. Because truth is often complex, multi-faceted, and ambiguous, people who come to reject the Big Lie easily fall for another Big Lie. They break free of the Lie but still retain the craving for some all-encompassing truth that had been satisfied by the former Big Lie. It’s like people who lose religion often turn to secular cults with a fanaticism that mimics religious fervor. Isn’t it ironic how secular progs are more rapturous and delirious in their celebration of Homomania than many religious people are in their worship of God?

Anyway, regardless of whether Patrick Little is a ‘fed’ or not, his antics are reminiscent of the flaming lunatic named Sinead McCarthy. Though initially greeted as a lively, funny, and irreverent voice of the Alt Right with her parodies and passionate views, she soon turned totally nutter and argued in favor of Flat Earth Theory, as if to Westboro-ize the movement. It was then that people began to suspect she is really a nutjob or an infiltrator whose game is to make the Alt Right look bad by having their views be associated with nonsense like Flat Earth and other silliness. And yes, she also went 14/88 and then began to attack most Alt Right people as either ‘fags’ or worse. Little is nowhere near that level of insanity, but his campaign, at least when it came to Hitler-Nazis-Shoah, clearly went off the deep end. Granted, there are plenty of Judeo-Nazis who are no less crazed. People like Max Boot would have us believe Putin is ‘new Hitler’ or that Iran poses some ‘existential’ threat to the world. Ben Shapiro is a Jewish supremacist hypocrite who berates even the slightest hint of identity and interests among white people but demands that all whites rally around Zionism. And who can forget Madeleine Albright who said it was worth it to kill 500,000 Iraqi kids or Sheldon Adelson who called for nuking Iran, a nation that has no nukes? Insane. But we shouldn’t be countering insanity with insanity. Judeo-Nazis are evil but so were the original Nazis.


Sadly, even people who should know better in the movement keep flirting with or pushing 14/88 garbage. Kevin MacDonald has done important work on the JQ. Also, we can forgive his past associations with men like David Duke and Don Black because, having been pushed to the fringes, he had no choice but to form alliances with people of shared interests. After all, the conservative De Gaulle formed an alliance with French Communists in the Resistance against German Occupation. But Kevin Macdonald now has enough name recognition to be pushing Neo-Nazi radical nonsense on Occidental Observer. How can MacDonald scoff at accusations of ‘supremacism’ when he allows pro-Hitler garbage on his website? Now, the problem is not nuance or complexity when it comes to the discussion of Hitler and National Socialism because, after all, positive things can be said about them, as of communism and other radical movements. The problem is gushing endorsement, which some writers at Occidental Observer have clearly made of National Socialism. Never let your hatred of a**holes turn you into one.

On the JQ, Fuentes has broached the topic without going cuckoo bananas. He named the power and discussed what really happened with USS Liberty and other instances of Zionist spying, theft, and sabotage. And he did it without the ‘Heil Hitler’ nonsense. Because Pat Little veered into nonsense territory with 14/88 garbage, he got stuck in the ditch. Sure, he will continue to have back-slappers on 4Chan who love to egg on any self-destructive loudmouth, but that’s no way to be a serious and mature person.

If Nehlen imploded because he wasn’t smart and feisty enough to handle the controversy and firestorm — even at his most outrageous, there was something soft, passive, and Mr-Rogersy about him — , Little’s problem seems to be he’s too bright and aggressive for his own good. Intelligence is a great asset but not when it lacks patience, balance, and probity. Instead of carefully weighing and digesting everything he’s learned in the past few years, Little just takes them as literal truths, immutable and invincible, and lets his mind run free to draw any conclusions that cast Jews in an evil light. Little has mental energy that was rarely evident with Nehlen, but he ingest ideas like he vapes on that stupid pipe of his. He’s read this and that, so he knows best, and there is nothing more to know. He’s like a born-again(or born-to-kill-again) Evangelical except with Damn-the-Jews as his new-found faith.

Personality counts for a lot in human affairs, and the strengths of Little’s personality are also his deficits. He can be tireless, which is good, but to the point of zealousness. He can be combative but to the point of being insulting and arrogant. He can be engaging and articulate but to the point of sophistry. Of course, none of this matters if he is indeed a ‘fed’ just larping as ‘right-wing dissident’ whose main objective is to associate legitimate criticism of Jewish Power with neo-Nazi desecration and mockery of all things associated with the great tragedy called Shoah.